VALDOSTA â€” A Muslim woman seeking to contest a simple speeding ticket was denied access to the Valdosta courtroom of Municipal Court Judge Vernita Lee Bender because she was wearing a traditional Islamic head scarf.

The day of her hearing, 20-year-old Aniisa Karim said she walked in the front doors of the Municipal Court building and was told that she would not be permitted to enter the courtroom with her scarf on even after she explained to the security officer that she is not permitted by her religion to remove the scarf in public. Karim said the officer called for his lieutenant, who affirmed the decision that Karim would be barred from the courtroom unless her scarf was removed.

â€œI said, â€˜No, Iâ€™m Muslim, and like I told (the first officer) I wear this for religious reasons and if you donâ€™t allow me in the courtroom with my scarf on basically you are violating my civil rights and my right to a free religion because this is my religion,â€™â€ Karim said.

Karim said one of the officers told her that the denial of entry to the courtroom was due to â€œhomeland security reasonsâ€ and that allowing her to enter would show â€œdisrespectâ€ to the judge, though Karim offered to walk through the metal detectors and allow the officers utilize the handheld metal detector to scan the scarf.

Karim said she asked the officers what she was supposed to do about her ticket since she was not removing the scarf in public. The officers then called out a court clerk who told Karim that she would be permitted to reschedule her hearing for a future date, though she would still not be permitted to wear her scarf into the courtroom at that time.

According to Karim, her only option was to plead nolo contendere and pay the $168 fine since that process could be

completed in the lobby without entering the courtroom.

Through the clerk of court, Judge Vernita Lee Bender communicated an apology for the denial of entry stating â€œwe have rules that everyone has to follow,â€ according to Karim.

Following the advice of a family friend who is an attorney and also Muslim, Karim contacted the Council of American-Islamic Relations, a prominent national Islamic civil rights and advocacy group.

In response to Karimâ€™s story, the Washington-based group wrote a letter to Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker which stated, â€œWe assert that Judge Benderâ€™s actions violated the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct, which states: â€˜Judges shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. Judges shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status, and shall not permit staff, court officials and others to subject to judicial direction and control to do so.â€™â€

CAIR added that under Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the courtroom should be considered a â€œpublic facilityâ€ and denial of access to the courtroom based on religious beliefs or practices is therefore discriminatory.

â€œIn addition, we believe Judge Benderâ€™s actions are in violation of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of religion and equal protection under the law. Two state supreme courts have ruled that government must show compelling state interest in preventing religious head coverings in a courtroom. Obviously, we believe that no such compelling interest exists in this case,â€ CAIR stated in the letter.

CAIR requested that Baker â€œtake appropriate action to ensure that the legal, religious and civil rights of Georgians of all faiths be maintained.â€ The group also asked for a formal apology from Bender and a written assurance that Karim and all others wearing religious attire be allowed in her courtroom.

â€œI feel like in the year 2007 things like this should not happen any more,â€ Karim said. â€œOf course everyone doesnâ€™t know everything about different religions, but if I tell you, â€˜Iâ€™m Muslim this is a part of my religion,â€™ I feel like if you are a public officer you should be educated enough to know.â€

Karim stated that she hopes that as a result of the incident public officials will be more educated about different religions and different people so that othersâ€™ rights are not violated.

Bender forwarded all questions regarding the incident to City Attorney Tim Tanner, who stated that he was not prepared to discuss the incident until he has the opportunity to review all of the details.

Did they site any rule or policy to refuse her entry? Couldn't they just get a female officer and have her take off the scarf in a private room if there was concern she was hiding a weapon? I don't understand the reason they wouldn't allow her in.

Pleading the 1st amendment, I don't think that'll work. The 2nd amendment stops at the courthouse parking lot in Georgia, she's lucky she made it inside with her 1st intact.

I refuse to let this country go the way of Britain and screw everything up by letting muslims do as they please. Your religion says you have to wear a mask, eh? Well my religion says I need at least a pistol, if not a homeland defense rifle, on me at all times. But I can't go to court with either, so neither can you.
Take it off or leave. Thems the breaks.

I refuse to let this country go the way of Britain and screw everything up by letting muslims do as they please. Your religion says you have to wear a mask, eh? Well my religion says I need at least a pistol, if not a homeland defense rifle, on me at all times. But I can't go to court with either, so neither can you.
Take it off or leave. Thems the breaks.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Ramm on this one.
In todays thinking, the constitution is out dated. I do think it is interesting how those that think that way get all upset when things don't work to their way of thinking.
Why should the court have to provide any special place or officer to protect her rights when they don't provide a secure place for my weapon when I go to court, they say I can't bring it in or even on the property.

If a Muslim's dress creates a security issue, such that you can't tell if she may be hiding a weapon under that scarf, or robe, or head-dress, then our government should have a reasonable accomodation for her. She might have to bear some inconvenience and delay, but ultimately she should not have to expose her face and neck in public if that's clearly against her religion, and it's a genuinely-held belief, not just some made-up B.S.

They could run the metal-scanning wand over her covered areas, or ask to to show herself in a private setting. If she were to then cry about discrimination, I'd say "TOO BAD." But at this point, she's being reasonable and the court security personnel are not. They must respect her "Free Exercise of Religion" rights per the 1st Amendment.

Now this is a totally different situation from the muslim woman from Florida who wanted her driver's license photo to be taken while her face was fully covered except a little slit she would look through. The purpose of a driver's license photo is to show identity and to distinguish one person from another, and thus the photograph would be worthless unless she did have to show her face both at the time she posed for the photo and again at any time she offered that license as proof of her identity.

I am sorry if this strays a bit but I think it kind of pertains to this topic from a discrimination or profiling standpoint.

I was watching a documentary regarding Pearl Harbor. Yes it was the military channel and they were interviewing survivors of that day. They were very upfront about discriminating against the Japanese culture. Many of them share the same feeling after that day and even today (the few that are still alive). They will never trust a memeber of that race because of the events of that day. Does that make them bad people? I am not sure......

I AM NOT SAYING THATS HOW I FEEL, JUST SAYING ITS A POINT OF VIEW.

Now in this situation, we have experianced 9-11 in our generation. Of course these were extremists but they carry themselves in the same attire. We hear of suicide bombing carried out by women and children forced into carrying out the same acts. Just because it is a metal detector do all the courts have the ability to detect explosives as you walk in?

Do we have to profile, to help achieve security standards? I know when you board a plane they make me take off my shoes, my belt, my jacket, heck I am almost strip searched! (well maybe not that bad)

Do we need to institute these standards in all government buildings to assure safety?

What's next? KKK members get to go into court with their robe and hood?

Click to expand...

A Klan member's robe and hood is a costume. The muslim hijaab or a jewish yarmuka is a part of one's religious practice. To deny the wearer of a hijaab (or yarmuka or Christian cross about one's neck, etc.) entry into a courtroom is a violation of the first amendment, as the practice violates the free exercise of religion. End of story.

We can't begin to compromise on when and where the law is applied or whom is afforded its protection. Else our laws won't amount to a hill of beans and our great country will suffer. If not as Americans, then as RKBA advocates, we should do all we can to protect uphold the integrity of our constitutional protections instead of encouraging their demise and eventual obsolescence.

I refuse to let this country go the way of Britain and screw everything up by letting muslims do as they please. Your religion says you have to wear a mask, eh? Well my religion says I need at least a pistol, if not a homeland defense rifle, on me at all times. But I can't go to court with either, so neither can you.
Take it off or leave. Thems the breaks.

Click to expand...

This shocks me that you would take this position Ramm. I think that she is protected by the 1st Amendment.

Just because the 2nd Amendment is ignored doesn't mean that the 1st or any other should be too.

BTW, I'm a steadfast defender of the Constitution but I see nothing wrong with guns being banned in courtrooms. It is probably one of the few places I can justify a ban in.

Click to expand...

I see nothing wrong with banning guns inside a courtroom either. However, if we allow such activity under the guise of a First Amendment claim, would not a religion that really believes they must have a rifle at all times not fall under the First and Second Amendments? What if in three hundred years from now such an activity IS a sacred, genuinely held religious belief? Do we say, "well....it is a security risk, but he is covered under the First."?

I understand why guns are not allowed in court rooms. It is a question of security. Full on head dresses that cover all but the eyes are also, equally, a question of security.

What's next? KKK members get to go into court with their robe and hood?

Click to expand...

A Klan member's robe and hood is a costume. The muslim hijaab or a jewish yarmuka is a part of one's religious practice. To deny the wearer of a hijaab (or yarmuka or Christian cross about one's neck, etc.) entry into a courtroom is a violation of the first amendment, as the practice violates the free exercise of religion. End of story.

We can't begin to compromise on when and where the law is applied or whom is afforded its protection. Else our laws won't amount to a hill of beans and our great country will suffer. If not as Americans, then as RKBA advocates, we should do all we can to protect uphold the integrity of our constitutional protections instead of encouraging their demise and eventual obsolescence.

Click to expand...

A cross worn around the neck and a yarmulke and worlds apart from a garment that covers the wearer from head to toe and only reveals the eyes.

God I hate this phrase, but if there is a "compelling state interest" to disarm someone who has undergone a background check in the interest of safety, why would we allow anyone the means to smuggle something by someone who has not undergone the same investigation? If I have to apply for the privilege guaranteed me in the Bill of Rights, then others should have to jump through the hoops as well. Additionally, is conducting a security search preventing her from practicing her religion in any way? They could tell me I can't wear a crucifix in the courtroom and I'd be okay with it. Religion is what you believe - and no one told her what to think.

It's really a question of where we draw the line. How do we determine which religious practices shouldn't be allowed in the courtroom?

I'm all for letting this woman into the courtroom with a covered head, but does that also mean that we must allow Sikhs to carry their Kirpans with them in court? Or should we force them to bring in blunted versions (which is what Sikh children have to do in schools)? How does this differ from a religion that requires a gun? Just because a religion is older than any other doesn't make it any more right.